swak4foam-0.3.0 make parallel run crash on foam-extend-3.0
Hello, dear foamers!
Suddenly I've encountered following problem. After installation of latest foam-extend-3.0 and swak4foam-0.3.0 my parallel runs crash. The same case runs ok on serial run. In addition, same case runs ok in parallel on OF-1.6-ext and swak4foam 0.2.0. Terminal output of crash (simpleFoam): Code:
/*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*\ Dear colleagues, I'd like to ask you, whether your parallel runs crash with new foam-extend and swak4foam. Best regards, Aleksey. |
Quote:
- what kind of case is this (standard tutorial etc). Are there any functionObjects etc added - does this case use swak? If yes: try to remove it (no libs, no functions) and see if the problem persists - have you tried to run a tutorial case (for instance pitzDaily) in parallel on that installation? |
Dear Bernhard, thank you very much for your reply! Here's the case (simple 3D tube + Poiselle's inlet conditions): http://files.mail.ru/E0756960CFBB4DFC82322AC2935C2325 It runs ok in following cases: - using groovyBC for U + serial run - using funkySetBoundaryField + fixedValue conditions for U + serial run - using funkySetBoundaryField + fixedValue conditions for U + parallel run It crashes in following cases: - using groovyBC for U + parallel run As you can easily see, there's no functionObjects in presented run case. These data suggest that namely using of groovyBC make parallel run crash. If you need any additional data, please, let me know. Best regards, Aleksey. |
Dear colleagues,
please, could you check if presented case runs in parallel on your machines (using groovyBC). I do need to know whether this is a bug or I simply installed OF and SWAK wrong. Best regards, Aleksey. |
Quote:
One remark: could you please use a file sharing service that provides an english translation. Some people feel extremely uncomfortable clicking on stuff that they can't read. Especially with the bad reputation these russian file-shares have concerning the distribution of viruses. Doesn't have to be a "endorsed by the NSA"-service. Remove the points/faces/etc-files from polyMesh and the case should be small enough to add as an attachment here on the board. I'll have a look. But as mentioned in the Manits-report: this seems to happen one level below swak |
1 Attachment(s)
Dear Bernhard,
I'm terribly sorry for inconvenience. I attach the example run case to this post. Indeed, changing of etc/controlDict helped! Here's a link to the workaround: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mantisbt...iew.php?id=123 Thank you very much for advise! Best regards, Aleksey. |
Quote:
I have the same problem, I don't understand that "changing of etc/controlDict helped" mean and I can't find any helpful information with the link "http://sourceforge.net/apps/mantisbt...iew.php?id=123", |
Quote:
It means you need to change the fragment of $WM_PROJECT_DIR/etc/controlDict from: Code:
// commsType nonBlocking; //scheduled; //blocking; Code:
commsType nonBlocking; //scheduled; //blocking; |
Quote:
|
Hi,
I'm facing a similar problem. With groovyBC, my parallel computation doesn't work. And I have nonBlocking in my etc/controlDict as well. Code:
//- Modification checking: |
Quote:
This is a rather old thread. With "doesn't work" you mean the same behaviour as the original poster? Could you be more specific about the swak-version you use? Is this your own case or have you tried one of the examples? |
Hi Bernhard!
Thanks for replying! I'm using swak 0.4.2. I'm running a case where I have air as the bulk fluid and I'm injecting water droplets. So essentially I have two fluids in my domain once the water evaporates and becomes "part" of the bulk fluid. I have a Neumann BC at one of the patches. Here my groovyBC Code:
BOTTOM Code:
--> FOAM FATAL ERROR: Code:
--> FOAM FATAL ERROR: |
Quote:
evalDuringConstruction was introduced for exactly that reason. As fields are constructed one after another it can't be guaranteed that a peer field is already there when the boundary condition gets evaluated the first time (during construction). Usually it is sufficient if boundary conditions are evaluated whenever the field is solved for. It is possible that the "other" field has a wrong value during the first time-step because it has not been evaluated yet. For such cases set a reasonable value for the "value"-entry of the other field |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:13. |